Tag Archives: Columbia River

K pod has reached the mouth of the Columbia River for the second
time since K-25 was darted with a satellite tag a month ago. To
preserve the life of the transmitter battery, the data is now being
sent less frequently. See
Robin Baird’s update on Orca Network’s Facebook page.

UPDATE, Jan. 25, 2013

After dipping their dorsal fins into the Strait of Juan de Fuca,
K pod turned back to the ocean, as we reported yesterday. This
morning, they were still heading down the Washington Coast,
approaching the Columbia River. See
Robin Baird’s post for Brad Hanson.

UPDATE, Jan. 24, 2013

The orcas took another alternate route again. Instead of heading
on into the Salish Sea, K pod turned around in the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, not far from where we last reported them yesterday. As of
this posting, they are back in the ocean, near the mouth of the
strait, according to the
latest satellite data posted by Robin Baird of Cascadia
Research for Brad Hanson, NOAA’s principal researcher.
—–

UPDATE, Jan. 23, 2013

Answering yesterday’s question about where K pod will go next,
the orcas made a turn to the east and headed into the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, back toward the familiar waters of Puget Sound. Take
a look at the
latest map of the whales’ travels that Robin Baird posted on
Orca Network’s Facebook page.

As of this morning, K pod was nearing Port Angeles. From there,
they could turn north toward Victoria and the San Juan Islands or
head into Admiralty Inlet on their way to Central Puget Sound.
—–

K pod has made two interesting detours since Saturday, when the
orcas returned to Washington state waters from the south, according
to tracks generated by the K-25, who has been carrying a satellite
transmitter for more than three weeks.

As the whales approached the Columbia River on Saturday, they
took a sharp turn to the left and headed out to sea, reaching the
edge of the continental shelf. Their failure to delay their travels
at the mouth of the Columbia has been a surprise to those of us who
assumed they would find salmon in the vicinity. See map on
Orca Network’s Facebook page.

The whales then followed the edge of the shelf until they were
offshore of Queets, where they began to move toward shore
again.

The next question, as the whales approached the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, was whether they would enter the strait and return to
Puget Sound, continue past the strait along Vancouver Island or
turn around and head south again. Their answer was a fourth course,
veering sharply offshore into the open Pacific Ocean.

Robin Baird of Cascadia Research, who has been mapping the
satellite data, reported that as of 7 a.m. today K pod was about 30
miles southwest of Cape Beale on the southwest side of Vancouver
Island. That would put the pod about an equal distance from Cape
Flattery at the northwest corner of Washington state.

Anyone wish to guess where these orcas will go from here?

K pod has been tracked to
an area offshore of Washington State and Vancouver Island.Tracking data from NOAA

When I heard that U.S. District Judge James Redden had, for the
third time, rejected a biological opinion designed to protect
Columbia River salmon from extinction, my mind leaped to this
ongoing question: Will this decision move us closer or further away
from removing dams from the Snake River?

After reading
Redden’s opinion (PDF, 1.1 mb), I’m not sure. But I can
understand why various sides of the debate must be feeling a
mixture of hope and frustration from a legal battle that has
continued for more than 10 years.

Redden was clear that NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries
Service) could not conclude that salmon are on their way to
recovery by relying on undetermined and unplanned habitat
improvements proposed from 2013 to 2018 — not so very far in the
future.

Quoting from his own opinions upheld by higher courts, Redden
wrote in a fairly straight-forward way:

“The ESA (Endangered Species Act) prohibits NOAA Fisheries from
relying on uncertain and speculative actions that are not
‘reasonably certain to occur.’ Mitigation measures may be relied
upon only where they involve ‘specific and binding plans’ and ‘a
clear, definite commitment of resources to implement those measures
…’

“Mitigation measures supporting a biological opinion’s
no-jeopardy conclusion must be ‘reasonably specific, certain to
occur, and capable of implementation; they must be subject to
deadlines or otherwise-enforceable obligations; and, most
important, they must be address the threats to the species in a way
that satisfies the jeopardy and adverse-modification standards.

“Here, NOAA Fisheries improperly relies on habitat mitigation
measures that are neither reasonably specific nor reasonably
certain to occur, and in some cases not even identified….

“It is one thing to identify a list of actions, or combination
of actions through adaptive management to reflect changed
circumstances. It is another to simply promise to figure it all out
in the future….

“Coupled with the significant uncertainty surrounding the
reliability of NOAA Fisheries habitat methodologies, the evidence
that habitat actions are falling behind schedule, and that benefits
are not accruing as promised, NOAA Fisheries’ approach to these
issues is neither cautious nor rational.”

In a footnote, Redden said he is troubled that the agencies have
been unable to come up with numerical predictions for salmon
survival based on the habitat improvements proposed.

Redden said he would keep the biological opinion in place,
flawed as it is, to ensure that NOAA Fisheries will “get out of the
courtroom and get to work for the next two and a half years.”

By 2014, Redden wants a new biological opinion that thoroughly
discusses the mitigation efforts but also addresses “more
aggressive action, such as dam removal and/or additional flow
augmentation and reservoir modifications….

“As a practical matter,” he notes, “it may be difficult for
federal defendants to develop a long-term biological opinion that
relies only on mitigation measures that are reasonably certain to
occur.”

That last sentence about the difficulty of relying on mitigation
measures keeps the door open to a future court order involving dam
removal — but Redden clearly understands that he cannot replace a
biological opinion with a legal ruling.

Will Stelle, regional director of NOAA Fisheries put a positive
spin on the ruling. He told Scott Learn of
The Oregonian that adding more detail to the biological opinion
should be enough satisfy the judge.

“He ordered us to tighten up on the habitat program after 2013,
and that’s fine,” Stelle was quoted as saying. “We were intending
to do it anyway.”

Environmental and fishing groups celebrated the judge’s ruling,
as they explained in a
joint news release (Scribd). The following comment is from Zeke
Grader, executive director of Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen’s Associations:

“Now is the time for the Obama Administration to walk the talk
on real salmon solutions. As this ruling highlights, the federal
government has spent nearly 20 years spending enormous sums of
money foolishly by doing all the wrong stuff.

“Facing the problem squarely, including potential removal of the
four fish-killing dams on the lower Snake River, will create many
thousands more jobs, revive the fishing industry, save billions of
dollars for taxpayers, and lead in the development of clean,
renewable, more efficient energy.

“What we need most now is for this administration to lead us to
those solutions, not just bury its head in the sand in denial as
has so often happened in the past.”

Cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford reservation in Eastern
Washington is one of this state’s most critical and vexing
environmental problems. The site is so dangerous to the people and
environment along the Columbia River that every Washington resident
ought to keep an eye on the progress.

“The contaminants out there are so dangerous and so long-lived…
We should be absolutely insisting that the federal government clean
that site up, whatever the cost,” Jay Manning told me three years
ago.

Since then, the federal government has poured billions into the
project, including a significant boost of dollars with the economic
stimulus package. Now that effort is being pared back, with a
significant loss of jobs, as Annette Cary reports in the
Tri-City Herald.

Converting huge amounts of nuclear waste into a safer form is a
difficult technological and logistical problem, as reporter Craig
Welch points out in a pair Seattle Times stories published
Jan. 22 and
Jan. 23.

These stories bring you into the meat of the problem. But I have
to say that I was equally impressed by a short piece I heard last
night on KUOW radio. Reporter Anna King helps us understand the
nature of problem from the perspective of people who have made a
career out of cleaning up Hanford’s waste. These grizzled employees
have learned from years of experience, and are now about to turn
over their projects to a new generation. The newcomers will learn
to navigate the minefields of nuclear risk — but they, too, may be
retired before the job is done. Quoting from her piece:Continue reading →

A “strengthened plan” to restore salmon runs on the Columbia
River opens the door, for the first time, to the idea of breaching
dams on the Snake River.

But neither side in the contentious debate believes the
administration has taken the correct approach.

The Adaptive Management Implementation Plan would call for
dam-breaching only if “more aggressive” measures fail to reverse
declines in salmon populations, according to a news release issued
this morning by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The plan responds to a letter from federal District Judge James
A. Redden, who said a biological opinion issued by the federal
government would not restore Columbia River salmon runs, as
required by the Endangered Species Act.

“The time has come to move out of the courtroom and get to work
recovering salmon and preserving the region’s unique way-of-life,”
said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. “This biological opinion,
backed by sound science and tremendous state and tribal support,
will help preserve the vibrancy and vitality of the Columbia and
Snake River basins for generations to come.”

Here’s what Zeke Grader, executive director of Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, had to say:

“This was a test for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — on both
economics and science — and this plan failed on both accounts. This
decision will no doubt leave salmon in the perilous decline they
have been in for years and communities up and down the coast and
inland to Idaho will continue to suffer. For an administration so
set on protecting and restoring jobs, this decision is a huge
mistake and a clear signal to fishermen that their jobs don’t
count.”

From Bill Arthur, deputy national field director for the Sierra
Club:

“Although the Bush administration is gone, unfortunately it
looks like its policies will live on for Columbia-Snake salmon.
It’s a bit like the Night of the Living Dead; we keep fighting
these failed and illegal salmon plans, but they continue to spring
back to life… It’s now time for the Judge to bury this plan for
good, and provide a fresh opportunity to get it right for the
people, communities and magnificent salmon and steelhead of the
Northwest.”

In a news release, U.S. Rep. Doc
Hastings, R-Pasco, attacked the Obama administration for
opening the door to dam removal, even a crack:

“The Obama Administration has put dam removal back on the table
and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding.
No one should be fooled by talk of dam removal as a last resort
when the Obama Administration is immediately launching studies and
plans for such action.

“The extremists who brought this lawsuit may be critical about
this plan because dam removal wasn’t delivered on a silver platter
with promises of wrecking balls arriving next week, but they got
what they wanted from the Obama Administration and they’ll try and
convince Judge Redden to give them even more…

“I warned the Obama Administration that opening the door to dam
removal even just a crack would incite dam removal extremists to
keep fighting and divert time, attention and resources away from
real solutions to recover salmon.”

“This plan – while expensive – holds the most promise for the
region to move forward collectively to do things that actually
benefit fish… We support restoring wild salmon runs, and experience
shows that dams and fish are co-existing, but this is an
unprecedented cost people are being asked to bear in extremely
tough economic times”